Arild Knudsen Trondheim Mai 2018
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I II III Abstract This thesis investigates some of the most acknowledged academic theories on Trump’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election. The literature reviewed presents three main theories on Trump’s main appeal to the voter. The first theory argues that Trump was able to appeal to voters with economic concerns. The second theory argues that Trump appealed to voters with racist attitudes. The third theory argues that Trump was seen as an authoritarian candidate, and thus appealed to voters with authoritarian mindsets. The presumption of this thesis is that if Trump’s campaign was successful because it evoked economic concerns, racism or authoritarian attitudes, these would likely be present in other campaigns that were run during and soon after the 2016 presidential election. In this thesis, 14 such elections were examined to see whether Republican campaigns drew upon these themes. The findings suggest that other successful campaigns tended to focus more on appealing to voters with economic concerns, than to voters harboring racial animus or authoritarian-minded voters. IV V Preface It is no understatement to say that the writing of this thesis has been very challenging at times. Nevertheless, it has greatly fueled my academic curiosity, and whether the future holds further academic research, or challenges beyond academia, it has been an invaluable experience that I would not want to be without. There is a large number of people who deserve my deepest gratitude. The guidance of my supervisor, Jennifer Leigh Bailey, has been absolutely essential to every part of this thesis. Her willingness to assist in any way possible, and at a moment’s notice, has been nothing short of praiseworthy. To all the family and friends who have provided support and encouragement; your words have gone a long way in motivating me to do my very best. In particular, I want to thank Alejandra, who has remained closely at my side throughout my time at NTNU, and my parents, who have helped and assisted me in more ways than I could possibly ask for. This would not have been possible without any of you. Arild Knudsen Trondheim Mai 2018 VI VII Content list Preface…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….II List of tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….VII Chapter 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2. Methodology Part 1……………………………………………………………………………………………....................2 2.1 Acquiring the literature…………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 2.2 Identifying the main hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………………………..3 2.3 Testing the hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Chapter 3. Literature……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 3.1 Hypothesis A: Trump primarily appealed to voters with economic concerns…………………………5 3.1.1 Decline in manufacturing……………………………………………………………………………………….5 3.1.2 Trump’s approach to bringing back manufacturing jobs………………………………………..6 3.1.3 Trump and foreign policy……………………………………………………………………………………….8 3.1.4 Trump’s appeal………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 3.1.5 Comment on literature………………………………………………………………………………………..10 3.2 Hypothesis B: Trump primarily appealed to voters with negative racial attitudes……………….11 3.2.1 Trump and prejudice……………………………………………………………………………………………11 3.2.2 The education gap……………………………………………………………………………………………….11 3.2.3 Social Dominance orientation………………………………………………………………………………13 3.2.4 Support for excessive use of force by the police, and voting for Trump……………….13 3.2.4.1 Law and order………………………………………………………………………………………15 3.2.5 Comment on literature………………………………………………………………………………………..15 3.3 Hypothesis C: Trump primarily appealed to authoritarian-minded voters……………………………16 3.3.1 Trump and authoritarianism………………………………………………………………………………..16 3.3.2 Defining and measuring authoritarianism…………………………………………………………...16 3.3.3 How Trump appealed to authoritarian, and nonauthoritarian, voters…………………18 3.3.4 Discussion on defining authoritarianism………………………………………………………………20 VIII 3.3.5 Demography………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20 3.3.6 Authoritarianism and party affiliation………………………………………………………………….21 3.3.7 Describing authoritarians…………………………………………………………………………………….22 3.3.8 Comment on literature………………………………………………………………………………………..23 Chapter 4. Methodology part 2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..23 4.1 Selection of campaigns………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24 4.1.1 Discussion on selection criteria……………………………………………………………………………25 4.2 Investigating the campaigns………………………………………………………………………………………………..26 4.3 Data gathering…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27 4.4 Comment on methodological approach………………………………………………………………………………28 Chapter 5. Indicators……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29 5.1 Economy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29 5.2 Racism………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………..30 5.3 Authoritarianism………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………..32 5.4 Table of indicators with respect to theory…………………………………………………………………………..35 Chapter 6. Campaigns………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..36 6.1 Doug Burgum………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………..36 6.2 Gary Herbert………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………36 6.3 Kim Guadagno………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………37 6.4 Lisa Murkowski………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………..38 6.5 Mike Crapo………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………39 6.6 Jerry Moran………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………….39 6.7 John Hoeven………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………40 6.8 Mike Lee………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………….41 6.9 James Buchanan………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………42 6.10 Jose Feliz Diaz………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………..42 6.11 David Linton………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………..43 6.12 John Stefanski………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………..44 IX 6.13 Chris Brown………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………44 6.14 Dean Tran………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………45 Chapter 7. Findings and analysis………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………46 7.1 Table of occurrence of indicators with respect to campaigns………………………………………………46 7.2 Analysis of findings with respect to indicators…………………………………………………………………….47 7.3 Analysis of findings with regards to the hypotheses……………………………………………………………49 7.4 Analysis of other findings………………………………………………………….…………………………………………50 Chapter 8. Conclusion and further research………………………………………………………….……………………………….51 Literature and Websites …………..…………………….………………………………………………………….…………………………54 X List of tables Table 1. – Indicators with respect to theory…………………………………………………………………………P. 35 Table 2. – Occurrence of indicators with respect to campaigns……………………………………………P. 46 XI XII Chapter 1. Introduction November 8th, 2016 has been called “the wildest, weirdest 24 hours in American politics”1. This was the day Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States. What the Democrats, the polls, and probably a significant number of Republicans had predicted would be a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton, left many in shock. While the Democrats were licking their wounds, confounded by what they had just witnessed, Republicans now had to address the new reality; a Republican president, a man who seemingly had no regard for the party establishment and acted solely based on his own opinions and beliefs, had been elected. Since that night, not only Democrats and Republicans, but the rest of the world, has been wondering how this could happen, and what it would mean for the future of the United States. The answer to the question, why did Donald Trump win the election, is one that will fundamentally shape US politics for years to come. Many theories have been put forth to explain why Trump won the election. To try to identify which of these have the greatest explanatory power, I reviewed academic material on the subject. Then, I identified the three most popular hypotheses: Trump’s victory can primarily be explained by his appeal to voters with economic concerns, to voters harboring racial animus, or because authoritarian-minded voters were attracted to Trump. I evaluated them extensively, and devised a new way to test them. By identifying specific factors that each theory claimed accounted for Trump’s victory, I had found a set of indicators that I could look for. What I wanted to find out, was whether or not these factors were also present in the campaigns of candidates running for office during and after the 2016 presidential elections. If these factors were present in the campaigns of winning candidates, it would support the idea that the theories had some explanatory power. This approach is therefore based on two logical assumptions: that the candidates’ campaigns would primarily be focused on what the candidates consider to be winning themes, and that the voters would vote for the candidate whose message appealed to them the most. Hence, if the explanations given in the main hypotheses are good, central themes in the campaigns of the candidates who won would be clearly linked to the hypotheses. A fundamental component to the research design, was determining how I would test for the presence of themes that could be clearly linked to each of the three hypotheses. The logical approach was to develop a specific set of indicators that could be used to establish if a given campaign fit the economic, racist or authoritarian profile. I then chose 14 elections, and examined the campaigns of the Republican candidate.